Leftist groups? Oh noes, they shouldn’t be able to ask questions! That’s Cancel Culture!

Of course everyone "knows why" and of course they want to know if he is indeed a 'bad person' so they can 'shame him for being the bigot he appears to be'.

That is my whole point. The far left does not EVER want to leave quiet bigots, alone and quiet. It is not enough they bite their tongue and realize their views are not welcome in public discourse and so sideline themselves. The far left wants to ferret those people out, and FORCE them to voice their view so the shaming of the now outed 'bad people' can begin.

Thank you for admitting it. You can see Trolly and others will desperately try to avoid saying it and spin it in other ways while fully supporting the actions you are willing to admit. That is uke's entire M.O.

When did we once have this sort of discussion?

Hint: we didn't, you just made it up now

Answer this if you will.

Person A grows up as a strict fundamentalist religious person, who is Anti Abortion, believed being gay is a sin, thinks any premarital sex is wrong, etc, etc,

They have taken a job and know that in their work place and in broader society their opinions and views are a minority, and generally not welcome, especially in more liberal circles which most are.

This person seeks to live their own life by their own rules and opinions but would never impose on others, even given the chance. They are a good and productive worker and generally liked in the office and cause no problems.


But it is noticed at work any time any of these more 'liberal discussions' arise that this person goes silent. They disengage and refuse to discuss the issues or say what their view is.

If you are in that office and you notice that, do you feel it is not only fair game, but that you should then confront that person to suss out what their views are on those issues? Go to the boss and tell them you 'suspect we have a bigot in our midst and we need to find out and out them if so, so we can shame them'? What about fire them?

that you do not understand how or why that is a problem, is the problem.

Employees should not be forced to be Avatars of their work place causes.

Sanction them for speaking out or taking public positions against causes the company says are issues or causes the company supports. Fine.

But to demand to get them to dig in his head and route out his thoughts so they can be put up for judgement, is a bridge way too far.

An employer with a veteran as the CEO, and a work place would have every right to be all in on the Iraq war and supporting the Troops. It would be the populist position to take at the time. You might see the 'support the troops stuff as BS' and the usual military complex spin and BS. You might be a peacenik.

YOu have that right. You also have the right to take advantage of a day off without the 'thought police' demanding to know what you were thinking to try and out if you have an 'anti support the troops position'.

You are on the left so like Spiderman above you will see the outing of things you think appropriate good and justified while being able to see OBVIOUSLY why the right and any of their causes should not be forced on you. Your reasons are the right ones, and good and pure and of a level it is necessary to ferret out the 'bad people'. Those guys over there on the right have it all wrong though.

When you asked for evidence but refused to explain what would suffice. I just stopped before going thru all the other steps.

But tell you what, if you agree now to accept as evidence whatever I give, I will then give you the evidence you are asking for.

But what you cannot say is you reserve the right to assess and discard it, if you don't think it appropriate, while also then saying 'and I will not help define it first'. Because that is the situation just as I wrote it above that you are now pretending you don't engage in.

In a real sense it is the far left and in a nominal sense it isn't. Cancel culture is US cultural imperialism. It is dictated by US 'liberals' and US universities and cultural institutions. And the thing about US 'liberals' is that they are not, in any sense, liberals. They are authoritarians, because the US, a plantation society founded by slavers for slavers in order to perpetuate slavery in defiance of England's courts, doesn't have any actual liberals. In the 1950s they were Stalinists and Maoists, and McCarthy, though a profoundly obnoxious and illiberal man himself, was quite correct to say that they infested government and academia and Hollywood. Since then, they have gone underground and called themselves 'liberals', but they aren't anything of the kind. They remain authoritarians and they currently pursue Maoist Red Guard tactics and subject people to 'struggle', as under the Cultural Revolution, and that is what cancel culture is. You might note that JFK and LBJ didn't have a whole lot of truck with US 'liberals' and didn't like them.

So if I’m a professional soccer player I get to sit out every game and get paid if I have unspecified religious objections to soccer? Sounds great.

So you admit that you just made up arguments you think I would have made (going so far as to write out the dialogue I never participated in). I think you'll find more productive to argue against the actual person in front of you

1) You weren't the person I asked for evidence from.

2) If you want to resurrect that discussion and provide the evidence, I'm willing to read the post. I don't actually recall what it was about.

3) I wasn't looking for a long detour on that subject, so I'm not looking for ironclad evidence or to dive through the nuances, but at the same time I'm not going to waive my right to discard your evidence if it's complete trash. If you're even nearly reasonable, I have no intention of contradicting you.

US universities setting policies for Euro sports leagues is wild stuff.

no one does this, it's not at all relevant to the situation at hand. and yes the private business can most likely fire them if they want to for this expecting the business isn't dumb and lists the reason for firing as "religion". political beliefs are not protected.

when this same thing comes up with regards to hobby lobby founders being terrible bigots, everyone is like "it's your choice to work there.." but people like you bend over backwards to make it different when you think the left is doing it.

While I think there is probably a lot of truth in how you describe it here, from the left perspective, it is a mistake to not recognize it also in the far right but utilizing different means.

What I expect is a bunch of 'No You!' from the lefties here and those who protect them, but I guarantee you almost this exact same point put in the BFI would garner the same 'No You!' but from their perspective.

it is the inability to take any accountability for ones own 'side' that is so very harmful in cultural divide now, because when one side sees the other denying an obvious and undeniable truth like this, it just destroys any credibility they have to then discuss anything, rightly.

Not really interested in your attempts at the most dishonest types of gaslighting beyond how it highlights just how deeply dishonest the left is with their tactics.

This is a THIRD PARTY outside group, asking the the team to


"...Rogue Direct, a French group fighting homophobia in sports, called on P.S.G. and the league to find out why Gueye missed the Pride game two years in a row..."

So they can sort out whether it is just a coincidence and he was sick once and the second time he had a conflict OR if they (not the team) need to out him as homophobic.


You will spin and lie about it not being that because... well you're Trolly, but make no mistake, that no matter your lies everyone knows what they are trying to do. They are trying to suss out, smoke out and find and label the bad people who are otherwise quiet and not trying to put their views in the public.

It is not 'making up arguments' to extrapolate what a statement means.

When a Trumpist says 'there is no proof Trump tried to extort Ukraine' what they mean is only proof that would satisfy a prosecution in court. There is other proof, even if they refuse to recognize it. But i am not playing games with the Trumpist who is demanding proof or evidence only to keep supplying it to have them hand wave it away while refusing to say what evidence of proof they will accept.

I know the game. you play it, OAFk plays it and the far right Trumpist and others play it.

'Oh just give me proof or evidence' but I will never tell you what I might I accept in that regard. I will play it like it is beneath me to explain what I want.

If you want to ask or demand something but refuse to define it then you deserve to get nothing but ridicule.

You're just like a right wing nut job who's never seen racism.

Fascinating.

Uhh ya, you are advocating doing it in this very case in this very thread.

And lets be clear, you are saying they can be fired for unexpressed thoughts and you support that.

So not only does laggy not have a right to be fundamentalist and hold those views quietly but if he merely thinks them and never acts on them, you have a right to try and suss his thoughts out, and fire him for them.

And you bringing up Hobby Lobby is the opposite of what we are talking here, so talk about gaslighting.

Hobby Lobby is about an abusive guy pushing his religion on others. Here we are talking about someone doing the exact opposite. Shutting up and keeping out of it.

You say 'but he will not wear overt articles of support nor state words of support' and thus we need to figure out why and punish him.

You are far more like the Hobby Lobby bully founder than I am trying to impose your opinions on other and force their actions.

i'm sorry your example wasn't good. you can always try again.

idk what half of this is..

you were originally talking about a soccer player not wanting to support gay rights. we all told you he can do that, he just doesn't get paid for the game he chose to not fulfill his contract.

you said it was about a third party inquiring about his mindset, we said who cares it's a third party, they can write whatever they want.

you then had a hypo about firing people for political beliefs.. that is A-ok to do in the US. firing them for their religious beliefs is a NO, but there are work arounds.

i used the hobby lobby example as an analogy to the soccer player, if you dont like what the company supports you can not show up.. JUST LIKE THE SOCCER PLAYER.

What exactly do you think should happen here? A private company decided that all of their players need to wear a specific uniform in order to play, a player made the decision to not wear the uniform and not show up for work, and then nothing happened.

If I work at McDonalds and decide not to wear the uniform and my boss asks me to leave, should white knights on the internet show up to argue that I do not need to wear the uniform that my company has decided I must? Should we cowtow to the whiny mother****ers who decide to make a federal case out of their boss requiring a uniform to work?

Who exactly is the problem here and what do you think should be done. Should we fine the company for requiring a uniform? If I play for an MLB team and hate the ugly ass city connect uniforms and decide to sit out every Friday because I feel the blatant moneygrab is morally wrong, are you going to come to my defense and say the owners should feel bad for me for the decision Im making?

Yeah, the only people responsible for the right wing being racist ****holes, are the racist ****holes on the right. No matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.

did elon CANCEL those employees that wrote that letter recently?

when/if elon gets ahold of twitter is he CANCEL'ing all the people that disagree with him that work there?

or is it just firing employees in an at-will employment system..

Is there any follow up to this? A group asked the team why a player was sitting out and... no response was given and nothing happened (according to the article you provided)


CANCEL CULTURE!!!!

Duh, Trolly. Journalism IS cancel culture, dontchaknow?

Did the employer do anything with this request?

Why should we give a **** if an organization wants to ask questions about a public figure? Should we be mad if the ACLU demands to know why Donald Trump institutes a specific policy that goes against their mission statement?

There's a lot wrong here, but Ill only point out a few.

1) This is a public figure, not a random employee at a random employer.
2) You have absolutely no idea if he would "Never impose on others even given the chance"
3) While the group in question did ask for punishments, the team owners seem to not be interested in doing anything of the sort.